Paul v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that breach of contract damages are not to provide a “windfall” for the plaintiff and that plaintiffs seeking breach of contract damages must be precise in their proof
• stating that breach of contract damages should not provide a “windfall” to the plaintiff
• finding that the employee’s status with the employer “was indefinite and not, as [he] claims, for any definable or fixed term” because his employment contract allowed him to be fired with or without cause, subject to a few limitations
• stating that contract damages “should not act as a windfall”
• denying damages to terminated employee because doing so would award him double compensation
• resolving grammatical dispute to determine the clear and unambiguous meaning of a contractual provision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).